Friday, May 27, 2011

Romney panders AGAIN...goes all in on ethanol subsidies

Look on the bright side. At least he didn't flip-flop this time.

From The Wall Street Journal:

....“I support the subsidy of ethanol,” he told an Iowa voter. “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” Iowa leads the nation in the production of corn, a main source of ethanol.

Mr. Romney and a crowd that had come to see his first Iowa speech of the year had been evacuated from the Historical Building by a fire alarm. Amid the tumult, a woman asked if he was going to take any questions. He said given the circumstances, the question and answer part of the program appeared out of the question. So she presented him a typed out note demanding his position on ethanol, one she had intended to present at the presidential forum that had just abruptly ended.

His answer, delivered without hesitation, adhered to the orthodox position of politicians vying for Iowa votes. But it came just days after former Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty officially announced his candidacy and said the nation could no longer afford to subsidize ethanol, a position that he said backed up his claim to be the truth teller in the race....

I've come to notice that you rarely come up with facts, or a credible defense when your candidate's past or present policy issues are challenged. It seems you're only capable of producing snark. I think you're smarter than that. It's most likely just laziness.

RWN - What facts am I supposed to contest? Romney supports Ethonal Subsidies. You post a snarky post and we Romney supporters are supposed to produce mountians of evidence in support.

You called me lazy and snarky.

It's you who are guilty of this.

Why not write a post detailing why Romney is wrong to support ES, rather than just post a snark?

You are NUMBER 1 for hurling out accusations and charges. You act like the sanctimonious District Attorney of this site, when Palin is questioned, but you offer no serious posts outlining your oppisition.

If I only post snark, as you claim, it's because that is all that's required, considering what is asked.

RW loves posting these supposed hit pieces on Romney but he's the one that gets all riled up and cries like a bitch and curses and threatens to leave the site when palin is attacked. Hes as thin skinned as his queen palin is.

RW loves to dish it out but he cant take the heat when it comes back to him. Grow some cojones. Doug your absolutely right, palin is the perfect example of a panderer as well as a media whore. Im afraid all this is a show for her to be in the spotlight but she will not run. At least she knows she doesnt stand a chance. I do hope she runs so her obsessed supporters like RW dont commit suicide.

While I am 100% for Mitt I don't agree with him on this one. Farm subsidies are good as a buffer in case other countries start gauging us with high food prices. In order to provide for our own it is good to make some food in the good ol' US of A. However, ethanol is hard on automobile engines and is less efficient and more costly than normal fuel. I think that it has to be close to $5.50 a gallon for regular gas to see its benefit. In all actuality it might be cost effective in a few years so it might not be that bad in end.

Libertarians and policy wonks don't like the distortions on the market and "choosing winners and losers" in any market. I believe that fits in this situation.

This is not a make it or break it thing for me. Mitt is better than any other candidate out there, even if he does some shameless pandering here and there. Even the best get caught up in it.

He made the right call though and sticking to his past positions. From here on out I guarantee he won't be changing any positions. He will need to demonstrate consistency from his last campaign in order to have any credibility.

To RightwingNut, you just love to criticize Romney, don't you? I know you from praising Palin all the time. Don't you think Sarah Palin is known for pandering before she became governor of Alaska? Look at it, she promised to serve the Alaskans one full term but she didn't. Why the hypocrisy? At least with Romney, things get done most of the time.

Look, I am personally not in favor of ethanol subsidies because a We need the ethanol stock to eat b. We can't afford the subsidies

HOWEVER, ethanol is a domestic substitute for foreign imported oil. If we didn't use ethanol, we would buy yet more oil from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela or Mexico. So, I can certainly see why there is a place for ethanol in a energy policy ( if we had one ). As a consequence, I agree with BOTH Romney and Pawlenty. I can support the ethanol subsidies NOW as we work to get more domestic sources of oil so we can phase it out later on. How am I pandering ? Isn't this a realistic position to take. If Romney was against ethanol, wouldn't RW accuse him of " flip flopping ?" In fact Romney is one of the few folks running who isn't flip flopping from past positions. That must be distracting to folks like RW who would, of course, find fault with ANY position Romney took

A glance at Mitt's book tells me that it's probably not Iowans he's so much concerned with (doesn't even mention them), but rather it's the nation's energy needs and specifically as one of many options, which, combined with others, can lead us away from such extensive dependence on foreign oil.

He goes on to discuss concerns that need to be looked at, e.g. subsidizing one industry can artificially boost that industry at the expense of other, potentially competing industries. So, it seems that while he favors ethanol subsidies currently, it's part of a strategy to achieve energy independence from foreign sources while at the same time proceeding cautiously with how the subsidies are implemented.

The problem with ethanol is the subsidies to Iowa corn not the ethanol. It was an uninformed promise from the outset. They now know that switch grass is a better ingredient for ethanol but the pandering to the first caucus gave a stranglehold of political pandering to Iowa.

I'm with Craig S. If we are ever going to wean off of foreign oil from oppressive governments and dictatorts we need to explore all sources. How many have called for the "all of the above" approach. Explore wind, solar, coal, oil, and yes ethanol should be included. Some things we can't afford but we cannot NOT afford to have a robust energy policy. Ethanol may yet prove worth the investment.

larry, the pandering is not in his support of ethanol...it's his support of corn based ethanol, especially since the corn is grown in Iowa. Do some research on corn based ethanol and the effects it will have on our food supply and the exports of corn. Unfortunately corn is a non-starter in reasonable ethanol production.

OMG Doug, every single negative critique of Romney forces you closer and closer to hysteria. Once again...this post isn't about Palin...it's about Romney.

BUT...

I, personally, don't know her position on Iowa, corn-ethanol subsidies but if she agrees with them, then I will say she is pandering as well. If she doesn't agree with them, then she understands the issue more than Romney does, or at least, decided not to pander to the First Caucus.

Romney has supported the subsidies in the past and Hamaca/CraigS gave good accounts as to why. So he is being consistant.

If he came out against the subsidies, especially after Pawlenty did, then he'd be pandering to the Conservative/TP sector.

Everybody "panders" in their own way, when they tell voters what theya re going to do. If I only voted for politicians who didn't espouse policies I like and agree with, I'd vote a straight Democrat ticket.

The only reason folks are slapping Romney now, is because the "small government" shtick is in high gear.

We have to gain control of government, before we can re-organize and shrink it.

Doug, the problem with this issue, for all candidates, is it is a no-winner on all fronts...damned if you do scenario. If you pander to the Iowa Corn Farmers you're pandering or you don't understand the scientific realities of ethanol production...if you don't pander...you're alienating a major portion of Iowa and could lose the Caucus support.

My snarkiness is really just an attempt to show that a lot of Romney supporters will support him or spin his positions no matter what his position is...I undertand a lot of Palin supporters will do the same thing...I am probably guilty of that on occasion.

I just hope we can talk about the issues, there are already plenty of libs, on this site, that will spin the truth to fit their tormented and demented narrative...I just hope we regulars can do better?